Forum
Respecting Flags
Posted By: Grunvagr at 9:28 AM, Sunday June 8, 2008 EDT
***This post is subject to change, depending on the community reaction***
Not all flags need to be immediately respected. If you are the leader, consider the flag as a request for mercy, at which point you can choose to respect it or not.
- When is it polite kdice etiquette to respect a flag?
If someone has 8 stacks (especially) and is on the fringe of the board, has more lands than someone else on the board, and gives their flag and promise to not hit you.
(There are other examples: but generally, the player should have SOME tall stack on the board still, and thus a valid reason to at least put in a plea for mercy, instead of three lands with 2 stacks, for example)
- When is it okay to ignore a flag?
If someone has been fighting you all game (draining your lands, dice count and opportunity to win)... and they flag suddenly. ESPECIALLY if they are flagging after either:
1) attacking you with an 8v7 and losing (killing their chance to win).
2) attacking elsewhere, and leaving nothing but 1 and 2 stacks everywhere... (next to your 6+ stacks)
KEY NOTE: I would advise that you should always try to respect a flag so as to not wipe someone off the board COMPLETELY.
(unless you need to go through them to relink, or are rewarding an ally with place)
***Generally, use common sense***
If teal has 2 eigh stacks on the corner of the map and flags... and blue has one 5 stack - conquers two lands and flags next to your 8 stacks. Honestly, think about it. Does he deserve to place over teal? It's a ninja move, in essence, and you can make the call as to respect the flag or not. (I would 8v4, etc and mop up, but again, it is UP to you).
Just realize that not all flags need to be respected 100% immediately. A flag is a REQUEST for mercy, not 100% immunization from all attacks (otherwise it would be coded in the game that way). A flag isn't the equivalent of the immunity idol on "Survivor" if you catch my drift.
___________________________________________
Below is a message from Ryan, while discussing the flagging system, and how we can make it better:
"Honestly, I believe the currently flagging is the most balanced. Let's consider the different types of flagging:
1) No flags. Players battle until one player has every territory. Problem: games get draw out and last 1 hour. Even if 2nd has given up 1st must still keep rolling to win. This is the original reason for flags - to end the game quicker when the outcome has already been determined.
2) If everyone, except 1st, flags then the game ends. This was a good flagging system and lasted quite a while. The problem with it is you could farm dominance very easily and you could ninja flag. For example, 3 players left, 3rd doesn't want to flag, 1st wants more dominance points, 2nd flags. 1st has more incentive to attack 2nd. Ninja flagging meant if you were the last to flag you could make a couple of attacks on your turn, gain position and flag to end the game at a higher position.
3) Instant flagging. We tried having flags to make you instantly leave the game. The problem is that if you're in last and you know another higher player can flag then you'll probably wait. The outcome was that in many games people would wait until you had 3 or 4 players down to 1 or 2 territories - the player in first laughing and gaining dominance. This was frustrating.
4) Position flagging. This flagging fixes the problem with the previous type, lower players know that higher players can't flag out and will flag when they know they are finished. It also fixes ninja flagging - once you flag you can only flag for lower positions. If two players flag for a position they have to fight it out, negotiate, or the server determines the higher player based on territories and dice. It also acts as a contract with higher players and solves the problem of higher players farming. Higher players know that a flagged player can't unflag and isn't a threat.
The problem with #4 thats being mention in my opinion is small compared to the problems that it solves. People respect flags too much. End game negotiations is part of the game and has been with every type of flagging. The real problem is that the current flagging is so easy that we have become lazy with it, use it a lot, and accept most outcomes. The better players will realize this and use flagging to get the best outcomes and this will include not respecting all flags.
With all this said, the problem I think that needs to be solved, and has existed in previous versions of flagging, is to make sure everyone knows that flagging is not a sure thing. If it were it would be enforced in the game. Since flagging for 2nd doesn't always mean you get 2nd it means that its not a hard "rule" and is open to using however you like as a strategic tool. Of course when someone doesn't respect your flag you're going to get upset, but this is part of the game like getting upset when several players decide to focus on attacking you - its part of the game. When people complain about not respecting flags you can point them here - or maybe an advisor can write a blog post about respecting flags.
I think it helps to consider the history of flagging to understand where it's at. If you have suggestions for improvement please volunteer them."
_________________________________________
Grun's Commentary:
Play the game and have fun. Remember that the point is to WIN the game and have fun. Don't flag in round 3 because someone has an 8 stack. Try the chatbox to change the course of events or understand that 8v5s DO defend, and then there you are, poised to win the game and you can get no higher than 2nd due to premature flagging.
PS: Below is a relevant link.
http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44760615?page=5
Not all flags need to be immediately respected. If you are the leader, consider the flag as a request for mercy, at which point you can choose to respect it or not.
- When is it polite kdice etiquette to respect a flag?
If someone has 8 stacks (especially) and is on the fringe of the board, has more lands than someone else on the board, and gives their flag and promise to not hit you.
(There are other examples: but generally, the player should have SOME tall stack on the board still, and thus a valid reason to at least put in a plea for mercy, instead of three lands with 2 stacks, for example)
- When is it okay to ignore a flag?
If someone has been fighting you all game (draining your lands, dice count and opportunity to win)... and they flag suddenly. ESPECIALLY if they are flagging after either:
1) attacking you with an 8v7 and losing (killing their chance to win).
2) attacking elsewhere, and leaving nothing but 1 and 2 stacks everywhere... (next to your 6+ stacks)
KEY NOTE: I would advise that you should always try to respect a flag so as to not wipe someone off the board COMPLETELY.
(unless you need to go through them to relink, or are rewarding an ally with place)
***Generally, use common sense***
If teal has 2 eigh stacks on the corner of the map and flags... and blue has one 5 stack - conquers two lands and flags next to your 8 stacks. Honestly, think about it. Does he deserve to place over teal? It's a ninja move, in essence, and you can make the call as to respect the flag or not. (I would 8v4, etc and mop up, but again, it is UP to you).
Just realize that not all flags need to be respected 100% immediately. A flag is a REQUEST for mercy, not 100% immunization from all attacks (otherwise it would be coded in the game that way). A flag isn't the equivalent of the immunity idol on "Survivor" if you catch my drift.
___________________________________________
Below is a message from Ryan, while discussing the flagging system, and how we can make it better:
"Honestly, I believe the currently flagging is the most balanced. Let's consider the different types of flagging:
1) No flags. Players battle until one player has every territory. Problem: games get draw out and last 1 hour. Even if 2nd has given up 1st must still keep rolling to win. This is the original reason for flags - to end the game quicker when the outcome has already been determined.
2) If everyone, except 1st, flags then the game ends. This was a good flagging system and lasted quite a while. The problem with it is you could farm dominance very easily and you could ninja flag. For example, 3 players left, 3rd doesn't want to flag, 1st wants more dominance points, 2nd flags. 1st has more incentive to attack 2nd. Ninja flagging meant if you were the last to flag you could make a couple of attacks on your turn, gain position and flag to end the game at a higher position.
3) Instant flagging. We tried having flags to make you instantly leave the game. The problem is that if you're in last and you know another higher player can flag then you'll probably wait. The outcome was that in many games people would wait until you had 3 or 4 players down to 1 or 2 territories - the player in first laughing and gaining dominance. This was frustrating.
4) Position flagging. This flagging fixes the problem with the previous type, lower players know that higher players can't flag out and will flag when they know they are finished. It also fixes ninja flagging - once you flag you can only flag for lower positions. If two players flag for a position they have to fight it out, negotiate, or the server determines the higher player based on territories and dice. It also acts as a contract with higher players and solves the problem of higher players farming. Higher players know that a flagged player can't unflag and isn't a threat.
The problem with #4 thats being mention in my opinion is small compared to the problems that it solves. People respect flags too much. End game negotiations is part of the game and has been with every type of flagging. The real problem is that the current flagging is so easy that we have become lazy with it, use it a lot, and accept most outcomes. The better players will realize this and use flagging to get the best outcomes and this will include not respecting all flags.
With all this said, the problem I think that needs to be solved, and has existed in previous versions of flagging, is to make sure everyone knows that flagging is not a sure thing. If it were it would be enforced in the game. Since flagging for 2nd doesn't always mean you get 2nd it means that its not a hard "rule" and is open to using however you like as a strategic tool. Of course when someone doesn't respect your flag you're going to get upset, but this is part of the game like getting upset when several players decide to focus on attacking you - its part of the game. When people complain about not respecting flags you can point them here - or maybe an advisor can write a blog post about respecting flags.
I think it helps to consider the history of flagging to understand where it's at. If you have suggestions for improvement please volunteer them."
_________________________________________
Grun's Commentary:
Play the game and have fun. Remember that the point is to WIN the game and have fun. Don't flag in round 3 because someone has an 8 stack. Try the chatbox to change the course of events or understand that 8v5s DO defend, and then there you are, poised to win the game and you can get no higher than 2nd due to premature flagging.
PS: Below is a relevant link.
http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44760615?page=5
OldElvis wrote
at 10:31 PM, Thursday June 12, 2008 EDT You can run into problems with flagging (Obviously or this post doesn't exist). There are people who want to flag 2nd or 3rd but are stuck in the middle of the board, and don't really understand it when you cut thru. I', happy with the flagging as it is, but some people (like Femme bring up)think it's their last resort. I try to Honor Truces above flags, but I have upset some by attacking a Truced partner who has no chance of improving their position and is 4th when everyone else has flagged. People who honor Flags are tracked, and those who don't are tracked. Everyone should remember that.
|
lovekdicetodeath wrote
at 7:29 PM, Friday June 13, 2008 EDT i think the current flagging system is fine. it's some poeple who is the problem.
|
smurfberry wrote
at 4:32 PM, Saturday June 14, 2008 EDT I will almost always respect the flag of anyone who flags below me. The only exceptions are when I think someone has played cheaply (just a judgement call, and one I rarely make) or when doing so would harm my position. Many times someone will flag next to me while holding territories that I desperately need to secure my position against other players. I don't like doing that, but my own position is more important than another players flag.
The thing that bothers me the most is when another player does not respect a flag in order to advance the position of an ally. For instance, suppose I am in 1st and two lower players ally. If I get knocked to second, I will flag and I believe the "correct" move most of the time is for the other side to respect that flag. (not always, but most of the time) However, many players feel that no matter how weak the ally in 3rd (or lower) deserves 2nd simply for being an ally. I understand it's the right of the winner to make those calls, but I (personal judgement call) find that to be really cheap. Being an ally should have some privileges, but being promoted well beyond your position isn't one of them. |
wishbone wrote
at 7:10 AM, Monday June 16, 2008 EDT it's some people who ARE* the problem.
|
wishbone wrote
at 7:10 AM, Monday June 16, 2008 EDT it's some people who ARE the problem.
|
FastFourier wrote
at 6:01 PM, Monday June 16, 2008 EDT I agree that there are rare tactical reasons not to accept flags but in my opinion it is nearly always the polite way to respect them.
I am not talking about points - if you want to maximize your points you sometimes have to play impolite and maybe there's even a good way in between. I absolutely disapprove truces and of course any form of pga - except maybe you give a player some credit over others because you know he is a good and fair player. Still that shouldn't involve giving better positions. Because usually as a polite player you don't truce it is not necessary to talk about giving your truces better positions. In my opinion trucing is ok as a countertruce and to oppose a bully/farmer only. After the "bad players" are eliminated proceed as usually - respect flags. I especially don't agree with the idea of not accepting flags by the next placed player if he fought for your position. Of course it is impolite of your opponent to ninja-attack and then flag. In this case you have to decide whether you want to be polite or totally righteous ;) I hope to get only good feedback and I end my post by citing the part of the op: >>> Generally, use common sense <<< |
FastFourier wrote
at 6:02 PM, Monday June 16, 2008 EDT No edit? Well I wanted to write the part I liked most
|
FastFourier wrote
at 6:12 PM, Monday June 16, 2008 EDT One Addition - I admit I didn't read all comments before and I still haven't :)
I think it is not possible to solve the flagging problem by hard rules only. This will always be a matter of player-fairness. Even with no domination points (meaning no reward for farming) we would still hear complaints about not respecting positions - with or without any form of flag-mechanism. |
Dudeface wrote
at 10:32 PM, Tuesday June 17, 2008 EDT Flagging for place Sucks! (reposted from another thread)
Here is the set up. A game is well established, there are four or more players still in the game and all are more or less evenly matched. The game has broken down into two or three separate battles, two players hitting each other, and ignoring everyone else. Suddenly, one of the players gets a two or three spaces advantage in one of the battles. His opponent throws in the towel and flags out. The guy with the advantage, now in first or second place, no longer has worry about his flank. He turns and attacks the player on the other side. This third player was in his own mini battle, and now suddenly finds himself being hit from two sides at once. One turn he has a good chance at first, the next he is lucky if he lasts for the next three rounds. I have lost count of how many times this has happened. One moment I am holding my own with a good chance of winning the entire game, the next moment someone has flagged out, and I’m being attacked on multiple sides. Flagging for place has become an automated way of forming alliances in every game. The game starts out with everyone for themselves, and half way through the game the player who has earned second with a good chance at first is suddenly finding being torn to shreds by the player in first, and the guy who flagged for third. Second place guy (even if he gives up and flags) is lucky to get forth. I have been playing KDice consistently for the last 12 months, and have seen all of the different incarnations of flagging. Each had their problems, but those problems were caused by individuals who abused the system. Flagging for place negatively effects everyone and every game played. Simply stated, flagging for place is sucking the fun out of this game. Comments anyone? |
I_suck wrote
at 11:20 AM, Wednesday June 18, 2008 EDT Here's how I feel about flagging.
If I'm in first : I'll stop attacking you. Unless you attack me or are in my way. If I allow you to fight to the death, I don't care who flags first. It's a fight to the death. If I'm not in first : I'm flagging for my position. If you take it by attacking me, I'm going to fight back. To the death! I like the phrase "fight to the death". |